Oh, too bad, guys. We're going to descend into this habitual ritual non-sense again. Why don't we try being grownups. As a trad, I tire of seeing the debate devolve on our end into posting of inane pictures. Haven't we already talked about how this sort of stuff is really rare, and obviously regrettable. Do you think you do a service to the SSPX by somehow creating a false dilemma? Anyone with two brain cells can see liturgical abuses expressly condemned and forbidden in papal documents. This kind of disobedience, while many times left undisciplined by the local bishop (at least in any public way), as with the Barney Mass in my diocese, is not sanctioned. Just read Ecclesia de Eucaristia, for instance. So the full communion argument doesn't hold. Philosoraptor has his view. He presents a perspective of someone in a seminary. God willing, a future priest. A future priest who can help extend the use of the traditional Mass. If you find his view without ground, argue with him in a mature manner. For instance, to answer his claims about the SSPX, I would post him Michael Voris' interview concerning them (http://en.gloria.tv/?media=262993). He may not say they're full communion, but at least he can appreciate that there are good people there, and perhaps lend his prayer to the cause of reconciliation.

And as for this forum, people have to face the fact that it is an open forum. Yes, you have to deal with certain people. But what about the (unnamed) childish people here. How about the thinly veiled racists. How about the people who basically want nothing to do with the Pope or the Church, as everyone recognizes them? Or the people obsessed with conspiracy theories and end of the world doom prophecy? So if you're comfortable with these cheerful fellows, then why not welcome another to the ragtag bunch. I hope we're not here to just have our egos stroked and be affirmed that we're right. Comraderie, but also debate. An affirmation of what is right, but a search for the truth and the right way. I certainly pray we keep the rhetoric at a high level. It may be frustrating to see people go away from your view, but if you're indeed right, this should lead you to a more refined and powerful argument, and not into silly shock and awe tactics.

Rising waters lift all boats. Why does it have to be an either/or opposition. Why don't Catholics conclude with Gamaliel that "if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God."? If the reform of the reform is from God, it will succeed. If from man, it will fail. If the trad movement, outside official sanction, is from God, it will succeed. If not, it will fail. But we have the seal of faith that Peter is the pillar of unity in the Church, and that the Church will always be a guiding light for those people open to it. She doesn't fail. She doesn't fail in being overcome and destroyed in Her human witness. And She doesn't fail in Her teaching being overcome and destroyed. Furthermore, She is visible and amongst us.

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.

Mithandylan, do you seriously think I would happily affirm the first four of your five photos, throwing my support wholly behind them? I get the feeling you would walk out of such a church in disgust. And I would be tempted to follow right behind you. But what of the other parishioners who are living, probably often unknowingly, in grave liturgical abuse? They need help; their parishes need reform, especially liturgical and doctrinal reform. Stamp out the clown masses! (Seriously, where did they come from?) The liturgy should make the worshippers be compelled to fall on their faces in holy fear! We need piety and reverence in the church, not Buddy Jesus a la the film Dogma. You and I are in firm agreement here.

I hope very much that the SSPX returns to full communion with Rome soon. The Church needs the commitment to lived tradition the Society exemplifies. But until they accept the authority of the Pope and calm down their fanatical wing ("Offering the NO is a sin! It has no mention of sacrifice!" Vatican II was heresy and blasphemy!), I cannot fully support them, for my loyalty is to the Pope and the College of Bishops, and unless they direct me into sin, I shall obey them and respect their office, even if I do not respect the man.

Oh, and @Scriptorium (love the name): thanks for the SSPX video. I still have some severe reservations about them, but at least I'm not of the "Protestants with sacraments" opinion anymore.

(11-11-2012, 02:19 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Mithandylan, do you seriously think I would happily affirm the first four of your five photos, throwing my support wholly behind them? I get the feeling you would walk out of such a church in disgust. And I would be tempted to follow right behind you. But what of the other parishioners who are living, probably often unknowingly, in grave liturgical abuse? They need help; their parishes need reform, especially liturgical and doctrinal reform. Stamp out the clown masses! (Seriously, where did they come from?) The liturgy should make the worshippers be compelled to fall on their faces in holy fear! We need piety and reverence in the church, not Buddy Jesus a la the film Dogma. You and I are in firm agreement here.

I hope very much that the SSPX returns to full communion with Rome soon. The Church needs the commitment to lived tradition the Society exemplifies. But until they accept the authority of the Pope and calm down their fanatical wing ("Offering the NO is a sin! It has no mention of sacrifice!" Vatican II was heresy and blasphemy!), I cannot fully support them, for my loyalty is to the Pope and the College of Bishops, and unless they direct me into sin, I shall obey them and respect their office, even if I do not respect the man.

Oh, and @Scriptorium (love the name): thanks for the SSPX video. I still have some severe reservations about them, but at least I'm not of the "Protestants with sacraments" opinion anymore.

No Raptor. I don't think you would support the abominable things I posted pictures of. In fact, I dont' think anyone on this forum would. The point being made is that if one is to "swear off the society," they may want to come up with a better argument than "they're not in communion" with the pope.

because when priests dressed like clowns give communion to men wearing make up and dressed like nuns to mock Christianity (just one of many examples I could choose from) are in communion with "Rome" and humble priests who want nothing other than to practice the religion of the saints are not, it seems that "being in communion" doesn't mean a whole lot.

By your own logic, you would attend the clown mass instead of an sspx mass if those were your only two options. That's not a thought that would keep me up at night.

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.

(11-11-2012, 05:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure I understand the logic of the above post. There have always been bad priests, but that doesn't mean that being in communion with the pope is just some irrelevant formality.

This is more than bad priests, who were historically dealt with to one degree or another when their error was made known.

This is about the ruler of the Catholic Church on Earth not saying boo about these travesties and the NO program as a whole, while the SSPX gets table scraps.

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.

(11-11-2012, 05:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure I understand the logic of the above post. There have always been bad priests, but that doesn't mean that being in communion with the pope is just some irrelevant formality.

This is more than bad priests, who were historically dealt with to one degree or another when their error was made known.

This is about the ruler of the Catholic Church on Earth not saying boo about these travesties and the NO program as a whole, while the SSPX gets table scraps.

Would a Catholic in the 16th century be justified in concluding that there is only an invisible communion of believers because he became fed up with pardoners attempting to sell him indulgences during Mass every Sunday with no action from his bishop or the pope?

Using the Mass as an opportunity to make money would seem to be at least as scandalous as wearing clown makeup.

All I know is that there's something effed up when a priest offers the new mass with a super soaker or a python around his neck or whatever ghastly show of irreverance during an already bastardized rite is "officially" Catholic, and when I hear mass on Sunday morning the way it was for centuries, I'm schismatic or otherwise "not fully in communion."

I'm not offering an explanation, CP. I'm telling you it's messed up and doesn't make any sense.

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.